AT&T: FL Attorney General Writes CEO About Long Distance Charges----------------------------------------------------------------Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist wrote a letter to JohnPalumbo, President and Chief Executive of AT&T Consumer, sayingthat Florida telephone customers are hitting a "totallyunacceptable" barrier in their efforts to receive refunds forimproper long-distance charges. AG Crist called on the head ofAT&T to implement "immediate corrections" to the system andinvited the chief executive to meet in Tallahassee to discussconsumers' concerns.

In the letter, AG Crist said the Attorney General's Office ofCitizen Services received more than 100 calls and emails fromFloridians in the first full workday after he issued a consumeralert about the improper bills. Many of these Floridianscomplained that they were frustrated in their attempts to obtaina refund because of AT&T's automated consumer response system,which makes it difficult to reach a human representative inorder to request a refund. When they do reach a liverepresentative, consumers are often unable to obtain a refund.

The letter further stated that "Callers inform this office thatthe automated system erects barriers that prevent humaninteraction and on most occasions, when a consumerrepresentative can be reached, the consumer is informed that arefund will not be forthcoming. The system does not provide amechanism for the consumer to leave a message describing theproblem. This is totally unacceptable."

The letter asks Mr. Palumbo to "implement immediate correctionsto the current system, whereby consumers can be reimbursed forfunds improperly solicited from them through this "billingerror."

AG Crist also invited Mr. Palumbo to meet with him inTallahassee as soon as possible in order to discuss the reasonswhy the consumers can not recover what is owed to them due toAT&T's mistake.

These tires were installed as original equipment onapproximately 80,000 MY 2000-2003 Ford Excursion sport utilityvehicles. If the tires are operated at below recommendedinflation pressures or above recommended loads or at excessivespeeds, they could experience rapid air loss, possibly resultingin a crash.

The manufacturer, in conjunction with Ford Motor Company, willnotify its customers and replace the tires free of charge. Themanufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March5, 2004. Owners may contact Bridgestone/Firestone at 800-465-1904.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to give theCompany's food servers, bussers, runners and bartenders rest andmeal breaks as required by California law. Under the CaliforniaLabor Code, an employer must pay each employee one additionalhour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation foreach workday that the required meal or rest period is notprovided.

The plaintiff also alleges that additional penalties are owed asa consequence of the Company's resulting failure to pay allwages due at the time of termination of employment and undertheories characterizing these alleged breaches as unfairbusiness practices. If the plaintiff is able to achieve classcertification and prevails on the merits of the case, theCompany could potentially be liable for significant amounts.

The Company is still investigating the claims and hasparticipated in one full day of private mediation. No discoveryhas taken place as of yet due to a stay in the proceedingsordered by the Court to allow the private mediation, and no datehas been set for a hearing on class certification or for trial.

CANADA: Hospital, Doctors Face Suit Over 2003 Tuberculosis Scare----------------------------------------------------------------The Lakeridge Health Corporation, the Brooklin Medical Center,Inc. and several doctors face a class action filed on behalf ofmore than 1,800 Canadians who were notified by public healthofficials of potential exposure to tuberculosis between Februaryand October 2003, the Canadian Press reports.

The suit seeks more than $200 million in damages, Koskie MinskyLLP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, said in a pressrelease. The suit makes claims under negligence and breach ofcontract and an additional $20 million in punitive damages. Thedefendants allegedly failed to diagnose the case of tuberculosisand also failed to take the proper precautions to preventtransmission of the disease to others. The claim says therepresentative plaintiff in the lawsuit has allegedly contractedtuberculosis as a result of the defendants' negligence andbreaches of contract.

The lawsuit is unrelated to another tuberculosis scare involvinghospitals in Oshawa and Bowmanville that was announced by Durhamhealth officials, the Canadian Press reports. A Lakeridgespokeswoman declined immediate comment on the class action.

According to the Order, the Authority publicly offered and sold$75.35 million of long-term tax-exempt bonds in July 1998 tofinance the acquisition of the Forum Place office building inHarrisburg, Pennsylvania. The Commission's Order contains thefollowing findings:

(1) The Authority offered the Bonds through a materially misleading Official Statement that failed to disclose the scheduled departure of Forum Place's major tenant, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), in 2001;

(2) The Authority knew, prior to selling the Bonds, of PennDOT's scheduled departure, the limited availability of qualified replacement tenants, and the lack of any commitments from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for further leasing at Forum Place;

(3) Authority board members received copies of a Preliminary Official Statement prior to voting in July 1998 to approve its contents. However, those Authority members read little, if any, of the Preliminary Official Statement prior to their vote; and

(4) The Authority is primarily responsible for the content of its Official Statement.

The Commission's Order finds that the Authority violatedSections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933.The Commission ordered the Authority, with its consent andwithout admitting or denying any of the findings contained inthe Order, to cease-and-desist from committing or causing theseviolations.

In a related matter, the Commission instituted publicadministrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against PublicFinance Consultants, Inc. (PFC), of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;PFC's President, Robert Fowler; Dolphin and Bradbury,Incorporated (D&B), a registered broker-dealer located inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania; and D&B's Chief Executive OfficerRobert J. Bradbury, who served as financial advisor andunderwriter for the Bond offering.

EQUITABLE LIFE: Pensioners To File Suit Over Losses in Annuities----------------------------------------------------------------Equitable Life Insurance faces a class action filed on behalf ofhundreds of pensioners who suffered losses in their annuities,after the Company nearly collapsed in 2000, the London Timesreports.

More than 55,000 Equitable policyholders purchased annuities,policies that pay an income in retirement, from the Company. Thepensioners suffered losses as much as 40% of their income sincethe collapse.

The Equitable Life Trapped Annuitants action group told theTimes it had hired the Bristol lawyers Clarke Wilmott to launcha legal suit in an attempt to recover their losses. PeterScawen, the chairman of ELTA, said, "We are totallydisillusioned with the Equitable board and the Government. Ifthey won't respond to the moral case for compensation, we'llhave to use the courts instead."

The group has had 700 responses to a call for pensioners to joina class action and is seeking to find more backers for a classaction. The group intends to build up a fighting fund ofœ500,000.

Robert Morfee at Clarke Wilmott, which is acting on a no win, nofee basis, said that he intended to launch the legal action inJuly. He said, "We are investing serious money in this case. Wewill run the case and we will win it."

A spokesman for Equitable Life told the Times, "It will bedefended to the hilt by the board and they will protect theinterests of all the policyholders. Any policyholders joiningthis action would, in effect, be suing themselves."

GREEN BUS: NY Residents Launch Consumer Suit For ADA Violations---------------------------------------------------------------New York's Green Bus Lines faces a class action filed in theUnited States District Court in New York on behalf of disabledresidents, alleging the bus line did not provide adequateservice, NY1 reports.

The suit charged the Company with violations of the Americanswith Disabilities Act by not providing reliable wheelchairaccessible service. Attorneys say the current service is"grossly inadequate."

The private bus line is contracted by the city's Department ofTransportation and is one of seven private bus companies to betaken over by the city on July 1, NY1 reports. The city LawDepartment says it is evaluating the case, but refused tocomment further.

The judgment was entered in a civil enforcement action theCommission filed in June 2001 alleging that Mr. Renert, theowner and control person of Hawthorne, was the architect of a$22 million fraudulent offering of interests in unregisteredoffshore mutual funds. The Commission alleged in its complaintthat from at least June 1997 through June 2000, Mr. Renert andHawthorne induced more than 700 investors in 49 states and morethan 100 investors overseas to purchase interests in 30 entitiesknown as the Hawthorne Sterling Family of Funds.

According to the complaint, Mr. Renert and Hawthornemisrepresented via the Internet, offshore seminars and a networkof sales agents that the funds would invest in bank debentures,which in this case, were fictitious prime bank instruments. TheCommission also alleged that the Renert and Hawthorne failed todisclose that Renert used fund assets to engage in day tradingin Internet stocks, losing at least $2.2 million, and to fund amortgage on one of Renert's homes.

The judgment against Renert and Hawthorne permanently enjoinsboth from violating the antifraud provisions of the securitieslaws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (SecuritiesAct); Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andRule 10b-5 thereunder; and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of theInvestment Advisers Act of 1940. The judgment also enjoins bothRenert and Hawthorne from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) ofthe Securities Act and Section 7(d) of the Investment CompanyAct of 1940, which prohibit unregistered offerings.

The Court also held Renert and Hawthorne jointly and severallyliable to pay $717,276 (representing profits gained as a resultof conduct alleged in the complaint) plus prejudgment interestof $117,264, for a total disgorgement of $834,540. The Courtalso ordered Renert to pay $250,000 in civil penalties andHawthorne to pay $500,000 in civil penalties.

These cars were manufactured from August 2002 to February 2003.On certain "Special Needs" school buses equipped with Sur-Loc"L" wheelchair tracks, the wheelchair lift mounting bolts couldcorrode if moisture is present in the treated plywood floor.This could reduce the function of the track or the strength ofthe lift mounting bolts, resulting in personal injury to thewheelchair occupant in the event of a crash.

Dealers will replace the Sur-Loc "L" tracks with protectedtracks and mounting hardware. Also, lift-floor mounting boltswill be replaced. The manufacturer has reported that ownernotification began on March 23, 2004. Owners may contact IC at1-800-843-5715.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer named Janus CapitalGroup, Inc. as one of the defendants in his September complaintabout abusive mutual fund trading practices such as late tradingand market timing, quick in-out-trade that isn't illegal butthat most fund prospectuses prohibit. Janus was accused ofpermitting certain investors to time its funds, in exchange forinvestments from which it earned fees. The complaint launchedan industry-wide probe, and caused several shareholder classactions to be filed.

Four other companies have agreed to pay US$1.1 billion in finesto settle the allegations. Janus's settlement is the fourthlargest settlement to be reached in the probes. Janus hassuffered at least $13 billion in redemptions since New YorkAttorney General Eliot Spitzer named it in his complaint inSeptember that launched an industry-wide probe.

Under the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $50 million incivil penalties, $50 million in restitution and disgorgement toinjured investors, and to reduce its fees by $125 million overfive years, the Colorado attorney general's office said in astatement. The Company also reached the settlement with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and the Colorado SecuritiesDivision.

In a statement, the Company said its "funds are not intended formarket timing or excessive trading." The company also outlineda series of measures to deter market timing activities in itsprospectuses.

"This settlement continues our efforts to level the playingfield for mutual fund investors," AG Spitzer said in thestatement. "Market timers will no longer be given specialaccess and permitted to profit at the expense of long-terminvestors."

Colorado officials told Reuters Janus agreed that the chairmanof its funds be independent, with no prior connection to thecompany, a requirement the industry has fought. Janus alsoagreed to pay $1 million to be held in trust by the Coloradoattorney general to be used for consumer and investor education,and future enforcement activities.

Specific fee reductions will be determined on a fund-by-fundbasis by the independent trustees of respective Janus funds, inconsultation with the New York attorney general's office, Janustold Reuters.

Although the company still faces a judgment whose outcome isunknown over class action lawsuits being consolidated inBaltimore, the settlement is good for investors as it allowsthem to understand its financial impact on Janus, analysts said.

The fast food giant that once had the word "Fried" in its namewill also sell oven-roasted chicken in boneless strips, in wrapsand in salads. The paper said the new menu will be in place May10.

Last year, the Company discontinued an ad campaign saying thatfried chicken was part of a healthy diet. As a result theCenter for Science in the Public Interest filed a complaint withthe Federal Trade Commission, the Associated Press reports.

NICOR INC.: Insurer To Shoulder $29M Lawsuit Settlement Costs-------------------------------------------------------------Nicor, Inc.'s insurer will set aside US$29 million to settleclaims in the securities class action and the shareholderderivative action filed against its directors and officers,moneysense.ca reports.

The Company's insurer will pay the settlement to a third partyescrow agent to cover liabilities and expenses for the defenseof the suits, with the remaining balance to be shouldered by theCompany. The Company also said it is still seeking recoveryfrom another insurance carrier for additional money inconnection with the same matters.

Last December, the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission charged four of the Company's former executives of adefunct Nicor unit with artificially inflating the Company'sfinancial statements in 2001. A federal grand jury alsoindicted three of the four executives and a former outsidecounsel. Earlier this month, it revealed that the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission plans to file civil chargesagainst it, alleging fraud and financial reporting violations.

(2) Dolphin and Bradbury, Incorporated (D&B), a registered broker-dealer located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and

(3) D&B's Chief Executive Officer, Robert J. Bradbury

The proceedings alleged violations of the antifraud provisionsof the federal securities laws. PFC and Mr. Fowler served asfinancial advisor, and D&B and Mr. Bradbury acted as theunderwriter, in connection with a $75.35 million public offeringin July 1998 of long-term tax-exempt municipal bonds issued bythe Dauphin County General Authority (the Authority) to financethe purchase of the Forum Place office building in Harrisburg,Pennsylvania.

In the Order Instituting Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, the Commission's Division of Enforcementalleges that the Bonds were offered and sold on the basis of amaterially misleading Official Statement that failed to disclosethat Forum Place's major tenant, the Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation (PennDOT), representing over sixty percent of thebuilding's revenues, intended to vacate Forum Place as soon as anew building in Harrisburg, known as the Keystone Building, wascompleted.

The Official Statement also did not contain any informationconcerning the supply of, or demand for, office space byeligible tenants in the Harrisburg area. In order to maintainthe tax-exempt status of the Bonds, only ten percent of thespace at Forum Place could be leased to entities other thanstate or local government units or charitable organizations.

According to the Order, the Authority relied on Mr. Fowler, asits financial advisor, to ensure that the Official Statement wasaccurate. Further, Fowler substantially participated in thedrafting of the Official Statement. Moreover, as underwriter ofthe Bonds, D&B was obligated to obtain and review a near-finalversion of the Official Statement, and Bradbury was responsiblefor conducting that review.

The Division alleges that Fowler and Bradbury each knew, or werereckless in not knowing, prior to the offer and sale of theBonds, that the State planned to move PennDOT from Forum Placeto the Keystone Building when construction of that building wascompleted.

The Division alleges that prospective investors generally wereunaware of PennDOT's scheduled move to the Keystone Building,and by virtue of the misleading Official Statement and otherdocuments provided by D&B, they incorrectly concluded thatPennDOT was likely to remain at Forum Place beyond theexpiration of the lease. PennDOT departed from Forum Place asscheduled, and the Authority has been unable to replace it. TheBonds are in default, and Forum Place is currently inreceivership.

The Order alleges that the Authority violated, and PFC andFowler caused the Authority's violations of, Sections 17(a)(2)and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. The Order also alleges thatD&B and Bradbury violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Actand Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,and MSRB Rule G-17.

In a related matter, the Commission has accepted an offer ofsettlement from the Authority. The Authority was primarilyresponsible for the content of its Official Statement. TheAuthority has consented, without admitting or denying thefindings of the Commission, to the entry of an order that itcease-and-desist from committing or causing any violations andany future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of theSecurities Act.

VERMONT: Attorney General Forges Settlement With Medco Health-------------------------------------------------------------Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell announced in astatement the settlement of claims under Vermont's ConsumerFraud Act against Medco Health Solutions, Inc., the world'slargest pharmaceutical benefits management (PBM) company.

As a PBM, Medco manages pharmaceutical benefits for healthinsurance plans and employers, reimburses retail pharmacies fordrugs purchased by consumers covered by the plans, and runsseveral mail order pharmacies to fill long-term prescriptions.Along with the Attorneys General in 19 other states, AttorneyGeneral Sorrell has alleged that Medco encouraged prescribers toswitch consumers to prescription drugs different from the onesprescribed by their doctor through deceptive claims about thepurpose for the switch.

Attorney General Sorrell alleged that Medco proposed these drugswitches because they benefited Medco through payments made bythe pharmaceutical manufacturers of the drug that consumers wereswitched to. In its solicitations for the drug switches, Medcotold the doctors and consumers that the switches saved money forboth the consumers and health plans.

"PBMs play a significant role in the way drugs are purchased byconsumers who have insurance coverage," said Attorney GeneralSorrell. "This investigation uncovered that some PBM practicesresult in higher costs for consumers and greater benefits forthe PBM. This settlement will begin the process of changing andshedding more light on these practices."

The settlement, contained in a consent decree filed inWashington Superior Court, requires Medco to disclose, whenmaking a solicitation to a doctor for a drug switch:

(1) the minimum or actual cost savings for health plans and the difference in co-payments made by patients;

(2) Medco's financial incentives for certain drug switches; and

(3) material differences in side effects between prescribed drugs and proposed drugs.

Medco is also required to:

(i) Reimburse patients for out-of-pocket costs for drug switch-related health care costs and notify patients and prescribers that such reimbursement is available;

(ii) Inform patients that they may decline the drug switch and receive the initially prescribed drug; and

(iii) Monitor the effects of drug switches on the health of patients.

Medco will pay $2.5 million to patients who incurred expensesrelated to switches between cholesterol controlling drugs from1999 to the present. Affected consumers will receive a noticeand claim form in the mail within the next few months. Medcoalso will pay $26.5 million to the 20 states. A portion of thispayment must be used to purchase drugs for clinics in thestates, or to otherwise benefit low income, disabled, or elderlyconsumers of prescription medications.

Vermont will receive a total of $510,000, including $100,000 tobenefit clinics or consumers of prescription drugs. In additionto Vermont, the participating states are: Arizona, California,Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, NorthCarolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.Medco is the nation's largest PBM, with over 62 million coveredlives. In the thirty years since the first PBMs appeared, theirservices have evolved to include complex rebate programs,pharmacy networks, and drug utilization reviews.

Prominent law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll filed thesuit, making claims under the 1982 Foreign Trade AntitrustImprovement Act, which they asserted allows foreign companies tobring antitrust suits in the US courts against multinationalcompanies. Last fall, the United States Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit allowed the suit to proceed,ruling that the conduct of the vitamin cartels "injures bothforeign plaintiffs and domestic plaintiffs, and it is clearlythe conduct that Congress intends to reach with our antitrustlaws."

The Supreme Court justices expressed concerns about oversteppingthe intended boundaries of U.S. antitrust laws and thepossibility of decreased antitrust prosecution abroad if U.S.laws were interpreted to allow foreigners the right to bringantitrust actions in U.S. courts. Other courts have disagreedon the question of jurisdiction, with the D.C. Circuit and the2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing foreign complaints toproceed, and the 5th Circuit refusing.

R. Hewitt Pate, the assistant attorney general for antitrust ofthe Department of Justice, faced questioning from the justicesalong with Stephen Shapiro, a Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw attorneyarguing on behalf of the alleged cartels. Both of them agreedthat antitrust suits filed by foreign companies should not beallowed, unless there is evidence that the alleged antitrustviolation had an impact in the United States.

Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court's leader on antitrustissues, asked if allowing foreign plaintiffs to sue in U.S.courts over transactions that occurred overseas amounts to"judicial imperialism," noting that, in many other countries,aspects of U.S. antitrust law - including liberal rules ondamages, jury trials, discovery, and class action - are highlycontroversial, law.com reports. Judge Breyer expressed the mostexplicit skepticism about allowing foreign plaintiffs to bringsuits in U.S. courts based on transactions that did not occurhere.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that although more than 100countries have antitrust regimes, many countries have notdeveloped antitrust laws of their own. His question: "What aboutthe majority of nations without antitrust laws? Might they beeager for us to do the job for them?"

In response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's questions aboutcomity, or recognition by courts in different jurisdictions ofthe laws and judicial decisions of another, Thomas Goldstein, onbehalf of those challenging the purported cartels, offered anunusual possible solution, law.com reports. To avoid frictionwith other jurisdictions, Goldstein suggested, the lower courtscould limit the remedies available to foreign plaintiffs tothose allowed in their home courts. In other words, if aplaintiff's home country allows only single damages, Goldsteinsuggested, the U.S. court could set a cap of single damages ifthat plaintiff prevails

On certain sport utility vehicles, the rear left and right brakelight relays may not function when the brake pedal is depressedor may stay on continuously. If the brake lights fail to comeon, there will be no lower brake lights to indicate to followingvehicles that the vehicle is decelerating, which could result ina crash.

Dealers will replace the brake light relay with two relays of amodified design. The manufacturer has reported that ownernotification began on February 23, 2004. Owners may contactVolvo at 1-800-458-1552.

On certain Class 8 trucks, the engine pre-heater jumper wiringharness was incorrectly assembled. The engine pre-heater couldoverheat, resulting in damage to it and to other heat- sensitiveengine components located near the pre-heater. This couldcompromise the ability to re-start the engine, which couldresult in a crash.

Dealers will repair the affected circuits in the jumper wiringharness connector. The manufacturer has reported that ownernotification began on March 8, 2004. Owners may contact Volvoat 1-800-528-6586.

New Securities Fraud Cases

aaiPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of North Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf ofpersons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly tradedsecurities of aaiPharma Inc. (NASDAQ: AAII) between July 23,2003 and February 4, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filedagainst aaiPharma and Philip S. Tabbiner and William L. Ginna.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint allegesthat, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerousstatements to the market concerning the Company's financialresults, which failed to disclose and or misrepresented that theCompany's core business was deteriorating, that the company wasunloading inventory onto wholesalers in order to meet salesprojections, and that the aforementioned practice in order tokeep its stock price up in order to fend off a third partysuitor.

On February 5, 2004, aaiPharma announced that the Companyexpected net revenues to be between $340 million and $355million for 2004. Diluted earnings per share for 2004 wereexpected to remain, as previously disclosed, between $1.45 and$1.52. Earnings were expected in the range of $0.27 to $0.30 perdiluted share for the first quarter 2004. Additionally, theCompany announced that it was setting aside money to pay forrefunds on older medicines after an unusually high return ratein the fourth quarter. In response to this news, shares ofaaiPharma fell 23%, or $6.36 per share to close at $21.24 pershare on very heavy volume.

ABATIX CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated asecurities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquiredAbatix Corporation (NASDAQ: ABIX) securities between April 14,2004 and April 21, 2004, inclusive. The case is pending in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,against the company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materially false andmisleading statements to the market throughout the Class Periodwhich statements had the effect of artificially inflating themarket price of the Company's securities.

ABATIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities ofAbatix Corporation (Nasdaq: ABIX) between 5:05 p.m. EasternStandard Time ("EST") on April 14, 2004 and 8:24 a.m. EST onApril 21, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is pending againstdefendants Abatix, Terry Shaver (President and CEO), FrankCinatl, IV (CFO and Vice President), and Gary Cox (COO).

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing aseries of material misrepresentations to the market during theClass Period.

The complaint alleges that on April 14, 2004, at 5:05 p.m. EST,Abatix issued a press release announcing it had entered into anagreement with Goodwin Group LLC ("Goodwin Group") for theexclusive rights to distribute Goodwin Group's RapidCool (TM)line of products worldwide. In the release, Abatix claimed thatRapidCool (TM) products "actually removes heat from fire, metal,wood, skin, and other surfaces--fires are suppressed with lesswater and manpower; skin treated with the FDA approved RapidCoolTM burn cream heals more quickly; trees and other combustiblestreated with RapidCool TM refuse to ignite; expensive toolcomponents in the industrial segment that are treated withRapidCool TM generally have an extended life." Moreover, in therelease, defendant Terry Shaver claimed that "RapidCool(TM) ispart of our growth strategy. The exclusive distribution rightsto this product line are exciting because it has the potentialto be revolutionary. We are beginning the process of third partytesting that will remove any questions as to the efficacy of theproduct." In reaction to this release, the price per share ofAbatix common stock on the following day skyrocketed 214.5%, or$11.39, from the closing price of $5.31 on April 14, 2004 to aclosing price of $16.70 on April 15, 2004.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, Abatix's claims werematerially false and misleading. On April 19, 2004, the NASDAQStock Market (R) issued a press release at 10:30 a.m. ESTannouncing that as of 9:26 a.m. EST, trading of Abatix commonstock was halted at $16.70 per share, its closing price on April15, 2004, while the NASDAQ investigated Abatix's agreement withGoodwin Group. On April 21, 2004, Abatix issued a press releaseat 8:24 a.m. EST in which defendants "clarified" that:

(1) the RapidCool (TM) burn cream is not FDA approved;

(2) Abatix failed to verify the efficacy and uniqueness of the RapidCool (TM) products;

(3) Abatix had only conducted limited due diligence prior to entering into the agreement with Goodwin Group;

(4) Abatix failed to verify whether Goodwin Group had been assigned the patents on the RapidCool (TM) products and therefore, whether Goodwin Group was authorized to enter into the exclusive distribution agreement with Abatix;

(5) Abatix failed to verify the ownership of any patent applications filed with respect to the RapidCool (TM) product line; and

(6) Abatix nor Goodwin Group have ever sold any RapidCool (TM)products.

On April 21, 2004, once trading of Abatix stock on NASDAQresumed, the price of Abatix stock plummeted as fast and as faras it had risen in reaction to the April 14, 2004 press release,falling $6.93, or 41.4%, from its halted price of $16.70 pershare to close at $9.77.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theMiddle District of Florida, against the company and certain keyofficers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materially false andmisleading statements to the market throughout the Class Periodwhich statements had the effect of artificially inflating themarket price of the Company's securities.

CAREER EDUCATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasersof Career Education Corporation (NASDAQ: CECO) securities, whowere damaged thereby, during the period between April 22, 2003and December 2, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges CEC and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. The complaint alleges that Career Education publiclytouted its business and financial performance, the performanceof its stock price and its industry leading position as reasonsfor why investors should purchase its stock. These, and otherstatements particularized in the complaint, were materiallyfalse and misleading because they failed to disclose that CEChad been regularly falsifying student records in order toincrease graduation rates and enrollment, conceal problems thatcould have threatened the accreditation of its schools, andgenerally, to allow it to increase its profitability.

On December 3, 2003, the market learned that the formerregistrar of CEC's Brooks Institute of Photography in SantaBarbara, California alleged, in a complaint filed with anaccreditation agency, that the school falsified student recordsto ensure that the school passed inspections by accreditationauditors and to increase enrollment. In reaction to thisannouncement, CEC's stock price plummeted, falling from $54.76per share on December 2, 2003 to $39.48 on December 3, 2003, aone-day drop of 28%, on trading volume of 18.2 million shares -- more than nine times the Company's three-month daily average.Throughout the Class Period, Career Education insiders,including the individual defendants, sold a total of 1.7 million(split-adjusted) shares of Career Education common stock atartificially inflated prices, reaping gross proceeds in excessof $69 million.

CHINA LIFE: Strauss & Troy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Firm of Strauss & Troy filed a securities class actionon behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired thesecurities of China Life Insurance Co. Limited (LFC) betweenDecember 22, 2003 and February 3, 2004, inclusive and whosuffered damages thereby. The action, case number 04-CV-2821,David Kammerer v. China Life Insurance Co. Limited et al., ispending in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, China Lifeand certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges thatdefendants failed to disclose:

(1) that China Life and/or its predecessor company had engaged in a huge financial fraud by misusing 5.4 billion yuan ($652 million) of funds;

(2) that China Life and/or its predecessor company had engaged in criminal activities by making illegal and unauthorized loans, investments and payments;

(3) that at the time of its initial public offering ("IPO") the National Audit Office of the Peoples Republic of China ("CNO") had completed and/or was about to publish its report detailing this huge financial fraud; and

(4) that defendants knew that this information would have a material impact on the share price of its $3 billion IPO.

On February 3, 2004, Bloomberg reported that the CNO hadpublished its report detailing massive fraud at China Life. Thereport stated that China Life had misused 5.4 billion yuan ($652million) of funds, making illegal and unauthorized loans,investments and payments. According to Bloomberg, the CNO'sprobe uncovered 28 criminal cases involving 489 million yuan.More specifically, the CNO found that China Life offered illegalagency services and made unusually high insurance payments tothe amount of 2.38 billion yuan. The CNO reported that Companyused 2.5 billion yuan to make illegal investments and gaveunauthorized loans. Government investigators also found privatecaches holding 31.79 million yuan that were set up by theCompany. News of this shocked the market and shares of ChinaLife fell $2.13 per share, or 7.4% to close at $26.67 per shareon usually high trading volume on February 4, 2004.

IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for District ofMassachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock ofIbis Technology Corporation (NasdaqNM: IBIS) between October 2,2003 and December 12, 2003.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Exchange Actby issuing material misrepresentations between October 2, 2003and December 12, 2003 concerning Ibis' new generation SIMOX-SOIimplanter, including that Ibis had orders from Japanese wafermanufacturers which would close prior to December 31, 2003.Defendants also misrepresented the carrying value of the smallersize wafers production line on Ibis' financial statements.

On December 15, 2003, defendants filed a Form 8-K with the SECadmitting that there would be no sales of i2000 implanters in Q42003 from the Japanese wafer manufacturers and that they nowexpected to receive order(s) for one to three i2000 implanterssometime in 2004 but that the timing of the orders ``is verydifficult to predict because the sales require the purchaser toenter into a license agreement with a third party.'' Defendantsfurther admitted that Ibis would record a ``material charge''due to the impairment of its smaller size production equipment.In reaction to the announcement, the price of Ibis' common stockfell from a $15.40 per share close on December 12, 2003 to aclose of $13.20 per share on December 15, 2003 and a closingprice of $10.37 on December 16, 2003, on extraordinary highcombined volume of 4.4 million shares, almost 50% of theoutstanding shares of Ibis common stock.

MASTEC INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated asecurities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquiredMasTec, Inc. (NYSE:MTZ) securities between May 13, 2003 andApril 12, 2004, inclusive. The case is pending in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Florida,against the Company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materially false andmisleading statements to the market throughout the Class Periodwhich statements had the effect of artificially inflating themarket price of the Company's securities.

MASTEC INC.: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities classaction on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stockof MasTec, Inc. (NYSE:MTZ) between May 13, 2003 and April 12,2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market during the relevant time periodthereby artificially inflating the price of MasTec securities.More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failedto disclose and indicate the following:

(1) that the Company was materially inflating its financial results;

(2) that the Company was prematurely recognizing revenue on various contracts;

(3) that the Company's practice of improperly recognizing revenue was in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

(4) that the Company overstated its inventory;

(5) that the Company failed to have adequate reserves for bad debts, inventory, cost overruns, and projected losses on certain projects; and

(6) as a result, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

For more details, contact Anatoly Weiser by Phone:(877) 736-5411, by Fax: (858) 225-0838 or by E-mail:info@classlawsuit.com.

NOKIA CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action againstNokia OYJ (Nokia Corp.) NOK and its officers was commenced inthe United States District Court for the Southern District NewYork, on behalf of purchasers of Nokia securities. If youpurchased Nokia securities between January 8, 2004 and April 6,2004, please read this notice.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges thatdefendants issued false and misleading statements, whichartificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, James E. Tullman, orDavid C. Katz by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com

NORTEL NETWORKS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated asecurities class action filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No.:04 CV 2572, against Nortel Networks, Inc. (NYSE:NT) and three ofthe Company's senior officers, on behalf of investors whopurchased the securities of Nortel during the period April 24,2003 and March 10, 2004.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued false and misleadingfinancial reports and statements. In particular, it is allegedthat throughout the Class Period, the Company's earnings wereartificially inflated through accounting manipulation inviolation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

On March 10, 2004, Nortel announced that it might have torestate results for 2003 and earlier, results which the Companyhad restated only months earlier. The Company also announcedits need to delay filing of its 2003 annual report. UponNortel's announcements, the price of its common stock fell over7%. Thereafter, Nortel announced on March 15, 2004, thesuspension of defendants Douglas Beatty and Michael Gollogly.Following this announcement, the price of the shares of theCompany's stock fell 18.5%. The Securities and ExchangeCommission (SEC) has reportedly undertaken a formalinvestigation of the Company's accounting practices.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. by Phone:888-476-6529 ((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in MO----------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated asecurities class action lawsuit against NovaStar Financial, Inc.(NYSE:NFI) and three of the Company's senior officers, on behalfof all persons or entities who purchased the securities ofNovaStar during the period between October 29, 2003 throughApril 8, 2004, inclusive. The case was filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Missouri(Western Division).

As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Perioddefendants reported record growth in the Company's earnings,production, securities portfolio as well as highlighting theincreasing number of NovaStar branch offices. The Companyreported that in 2003, it had doubled the number of branchoffices in operation as well as achieved record earnings growth.However, it is alleged that NovaStar failed to maintainregulatory compliance with its operations.

Instead of disclosing that several NovaStar branches wereoperating illegally, defendants continued to tout NovaStar'saccomplishments, thereby artificially inflating the price of theCompany's stock. Defendant's perpetuated the illusion ofimpressive growth to sell $110 million worth of the company'sequities to the investing public.

On April 12, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that theCompany grossly overstated the actual number of branch officesNovaStar had in operation, as well as stating that NovaStaroperated numerous offices illegally in multiple states.Following this announcement, the price of NovaStar shares fellalmost 31%, from $54.18 to $37.50 per share.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, by Phone:888-476-6529 ((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Zimmerman Levi Lodges Securities Suit in MO---------------------------------------------------------------Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Missouri on behalf of all purchasers of thesecurities of Novastar Financial Inc. (NYSE:NFI), betweenOctober 29, 2003 and April 8, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federalsecurities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that eachof the defendants knew, yet concealed from the investing public,that:

(1) the Company was operating branch offices in various states without obtaining the necessary licenses for such branches offices and was conducting business in violation of applicable laws and regulations;

(2) the Company's growth through branch office expansions was grossly overstated as these branch offices either did not actually exist or were illegally conducting business in Nevada and elsewhere; and

(3) the Company's projected growth would be halted once regulators discovered the defendants' unlawful and sham business practices.

In reaction to an April 12, 2004 news article describingNovaStar's failure to comply with state licensing rules, itsinflating the number of branch offices in operation and itsoperating many branch offices illegally, the price of Novastarstock dropped from $54.18 per share to as low as $35.87 pershare on a trading volume of 11,556,000 shares. On April 19,2004, the SEC announced that it has begun an inquiry intoNovaStar's business practices. In response the SEC inquiry, theCompany's shares continued to plummet to below $32 per share.

For more details, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. by Mail: 39Broadway, Suite 1440, New York, N.Y. 10006 by Phone:(212) 363-7500 or (800) 835-4950 or by E-mail: ek@zlklaw.com

PARADIGM MEDICAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in UT Court----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the District ofUtah on behalf of purchasers of Paradigm Medical Industries,Inc. (NasdaqSC: PMED) publicly traded securities during theperiod from April 25, 2001 through May 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Paradigm and certain of its currentand former officers and directors violated Section 10b of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series ofmaterially false and misleading statements to the marketbeginning on April 25, 2001 and continuing through December2002. Paradigm develops and sells laser surgical systems,including the Ocular Blood Flow Analyzer ("BFA").

The complaint alleges that Paradigm misrepresented in itsSecurities & Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings and in pressreleases that it had received authorization from the AmericanMedical Association for a Common Procedure Terminology codefacilitating insurance reimbursement to doctors for performingmedical procedures with the BFA. Additionally, the complaintalleges that the Company misrepresented in a press release thatit had received a $105 million purchase order, when no suchpurchase order existed. As a result of these misrepresentations,according to the complaint, the price of PMED securities wasartificially inflated during the Class Period.

PEC SOLUTIONS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. VA---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of the commonstock of PEC Solutions Inc. (NasdaqNM: PECS) from October 22,2002 through March 14, 2003, inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the complaint,defendants issued a series of materially false and misleadingstatements concerning the Company's business, operations andprospects. The Complaint alleges that these statements werematerially false and misleading when made as they failed todisclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, amongothers:

(1) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its products and services as the failure of Congress to approve a budget for 2003 was causing governmental agencies to delay projects;

(2) that the Company was experiencing material problems with certain of its biometric identification contracts and would not be generating the revenue that it had anticipated from those contracts; and

(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was materially overstating the strength of its pipeline of projects and its prospects.

On March 14, 2003, after the close of the market, as alleged inthe complaint, PEC Solutions shocked the market when it issued apress release announcing that it was revising its guidance forthe first quarter 2003 and for the year ending December 31,2003. In response to this announcement, the price of PECSolutions common stock declined precipitously falling from$15.80 per share to $9.81 per share, a decline of more than 37%,on extremely heavy trading volume. During the Class Period,prior to the disclosure of the true facts, the IndividualDefendants and other PEC Solutions insiders sold theirpersonally-held shares of PEC Solutions common stock to theunsuspecting public reaping proceeds of more than $13 million

RYLAND GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA--------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California on behalf of purchasers of Ryland Group,Inc. (NYSE: RYL) publicly traded securities during the periodbetween October 22, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Ryland Group, R. Chad Dreier, and GordonMilne with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder. Between October 22, 2003 and January 7, 2004, thedefendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to themarket concerning the Company's financial results.

More specifically, the defendants' statements during the ClassPeriod were materially false and misleading because they failedto disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,among others:

(1) that the Texas market (and particularly Dallas) was in a freefall;

(2) that Texas buyers were proving highly resistant to the entry level homes that Ryland Group was offering; and

(3) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that offerings of "move up" properties would be better received in that market, but that Ryland Group was not in a position to offer these types of properties.

On January 8, 2004, Ryland Group shocked the market byannouncing that new orders for the fourth quarter had decreased8.9%, largely due to an astounding 33% decline in Texas orders.Indeed, only 344 new homes were sold by Ryland Group in thatquarter, as contrasted with sales of 770 new units in the thirdquarter of 2003. This development stood in stark contrast to thepositive statements issued during the Class Period bydefendants. Ryland Group stock dived $10.16, to $72.89 pershare, after closing at $83.05 per share on January 7, 2004 onheavy trading volume.

SPX CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. NC----------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities classaction in the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of North Carolina on behalf of all persons whopurchased or acquired securities of SPX Corporation (NYSE:SPW)between July 28, 2003 through February 26, 2004, inclusive.

(1) that the $60 million gain from a legal settlement with Microsoft made it possible for the Company to achieve analysts' numbers for fiscal year 2003;

(2) that the Company's "core" business was deteriorating;

(3) that the Company was suffering from operating weaknesses;

(4) that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its earnings projections; and

(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants were able to artificially inflate the value of its stock.

On February 26, 2004, after the market closed, SPX announcedthat fourth quarter 2003 financial results were less than itspreviously issued guidance. More specifically, SPX reportedfourth quarter 2003 results of $1.45 billion in revenues,diluted earnings per share from continuing operations of $1.30,and free cash flow from continuing operations of $303.8 million.On February 27, 2004, the market reacted negatively to this newswith shares of SPX falling 21.20%, or $11.30 per share, to closeat $42.00 per share on heavy volume.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Departmentby Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40thStreet, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: SPW@bernlieb.com.

SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Suit in CA---------------------------------------------------------------Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action onbehalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwiseacquired the securities of Superconductor Technologies, Inc.,(NasdaqNM:SCON) between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004, bothdates inclusive.

The action, entitled Alvarez v. Superconductor Tech., Inc., etal., Case No. not yet assigned, is pending in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California (WesternDivision) and names as defendants, the Company, its Presidentand Chief Executive Officer, M. Peter Thomas, and its SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer, Martin S. McDermut.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market between January 9, 2004 andMarch 1, 2004, thereby artificially inflating the price ofSuperconductor's common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failedto disclose and misrepresented the following material adversefacts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregardedby them:

(1) that the Company could not meet its projected first quarter revenues of $10 million and $13 million due to changes in demand made by two of the Company's customers;

(2) that the defendants knew of the decreased demand for its product well in advance; and

(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and their earnings projections.

On March 1, 2004, Superconductor revealed that it expected firstquarter 2004 total net revenues to reach only $4 million to $5million. News of this shocked the market and shares ofSuperconductor fell $1.86 per share, or 45.4 percent to close at$2.23 per share.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.